Immunity for president's subordinates

 

Mark Meadows, former White House Chief of Staff, has asked the Supreme Court to recognize immunity for president's subordinates, including himself, from criminal prosecution. This comes as he faces criminal charges alongside Donald Trump for their alleged plot to overturn Joe Biden's electoral victory in Georgia. However, during recent oral arguments, Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, seemed to disagree with Meadows' argument.

Gorsuch suggested that holding subordinates accountable for criminal actions is a necessary deterrent to prevent presidents from committing crimes. He pointed out that if a president gives an unlawful order, subordinates face criminal prosecution, which acts as a check on presidential power. Meadows' lawyers argued that even if Trump doesn't have immunity, subordinates like Meadows should still be protected.

However, Gorsuch's line of questioning indicated that he believes subordinates' liability is essential to prevent presidents from abusing their power. He cited the example of a president ordering the military to assassinate a political rival, which would be an unlawful order. Justice Samuel Alito also expressed discomfort with the idea of granting immunity for such actions.

Meadows' request for "trickle-down immunity" is inconsistent with past cases where employees in previous administrations have been criminally convicted for actions taken while in office. Constitutional law professor Anthony Michael Kreis noted that this approach goes against the rule of law and past practices in history.

The Supreme Court's decision on Trump's immunity case could have significant implications for Meadows' own criminal case. If the court rules in favor of Trump, it could potentially delay or dismiss Meadows' case. However, if the court rejects Trump's immunity claim, it could pave the way for Meadows and other subordinates to face criminal prosecution for their actions.

The case highlights the ongoing debate over presidential power and accountability. While Trump and Meadows argue that they should be protected from criminal prosecution, others argue that this would create a dangerous precedent and undermine the rule of law. The Supreme Court's decision will have far-reaching consequences for the balance of power in the US government and the accountability of public officials.